Suprapubic Versus Urethral Catheter for Urinary Drainage After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Leilei Xia, Thomas J Guzzo, Phillip Mucksavage, Daniel J Lee

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leilei XiaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, West Pavilion, 3rd Floor, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. leilei.xia@uphs.upenn.edu.

Thomas J GuzzoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, West Pavilion, 3rd Floor, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Phillip MucksavageDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, West Pavilion, 3rd Floor, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Daniel J LeeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, West Pavilion, 3rd Floor, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo review the evidence regarding the usage of suprapubic tube (SPT) versus indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). RECENT

findingsAvailable data on the use of SPT for urinary drainage after RARP is somewhat limited mostly because of the variations of study designs and non-standardized outcomes. Although it may provide some mild benefit in terms of catheter-related pain and discomfort, the benefit seems not to be clinically significant. The evidence in the literature so far does not support routine usage of SPT as the primary urinary drainage method after RARP. Further higher-quality studies that can show clinically significant advantages over IUC are still needed to justify its usage.

Indexed as

DrainageHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrethraUrinary CatheterizationUrinary CathetersProstate cancerProstatectomyRoboticsSuprapubic tubeUrethral catheter

Identifiers

PMID32506179

DOI10.1007/s11934-020-00982-3

OpenAlexW3033986556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.